Let me say it bluntly : there is no wildlife work you can do with a 300 mm at f5.6 that is worth doing. At f5.6, the background is not blurred enough for a pleasing effect. Further, 300mm is way too short. Unless you are at a zoo, or shooting giant animals, you are never going to be close enough to fill the frame. My average focal length for wildlife work is around 750 to 800 mm. That is a 500 or 600 mm with a 1.4 teleconverter. Sometimes I can go down to just the lens itself. But at least half the time the 1.4 is glued to it.I looked longingly at the L-series 70-200 f4 ($1500; the f2.8 is way out of my budget) but with the rebates going on plus discounts figured I'd give the kit 70-300 a try. At $350 it is not quite "free" but durn close relative to everything else! It has been reasonably well liked in reviews. I am still thinking on it -- do you think it makes that big a difference for an amateur hack? I like the extra focal length for wildlife, don't like the loss of light of the 70-300. I threw in the 70-200 and a teleconverter, but after going back and forth took the teleconverter out of my cart. Lose so much light and with the resolution of these cameras I figure I can do pretty good even cropped heavily. The Canon teleconverters are pricey and come with a string of "gotcha's" I decided to not wade through at this time. I ultimately yanked the 70-200 as well but am still thinking. That extra grand-plus may have to pay another month's room and board for my eldest as he looks for a job.
Bodies become obsolete every 18 months. Lenses stay current for 5+ years if not more. So I would save the $1,500. If you had the $1,500, I would put it toward another lens. So you are making the right call.The 6D only has one SD slot, no CF or second SD, body isn't quite as rugged, and weather sealing is not as good as the 5D, but that plus more pro features just ain't worth the extra $1500 to me. Picture quality on a couple of review sites was virtually identical at all ISOs, and I am just not sure I'd take advantage of the extra features, slight resolution increase, bazillion AF points, etc. After reading a little more (and staying up way too late!) last night I am thinking the WiFi and GPS are good features to have. I revisited the D600/D800 but frankly they are all awfully close in performance and features despite the rhetoric on both sides. I could go either way, but have mostly Canon P&S's around the house now and have liked what they've done.
I have circular polarizers and never use them. Can do the same in photoshop and then some. You lose light with them and always need an adapter to use it with some lens due to size differences. No use at all for UV/haze anymore either. Years ago I used them but now I use my lenses bare but always with a hood. Never had an issue with them. So unless you have a specific reason for these, I would save the money and put them toward something else. 64 Gig card will be a joy. Mine will only go up to 32 and even that is plenty. BTW, the last 16 Gig card I bought was a cool, $1,000. I just bought a 32 gigabyte one for something like $40. Amazing.I filled my cart and am cogitating before pulling the trigger (and going shooting this afternoon as a matter of fact, apt cliche). About $3300 with the camera, both lenses, B+W UV/haze and circular polarizers for both lenses, extra battery, the baby flash (270) and a couple diffusors, a 64G Sandisk xtreme card, a new bag, etc. It looks like I can also get extra VISA points so this will probably be a go this weekend, just want to sleep on it one more night.
I own and use the 100-400 but it is a very old design. If you want to do wildlife, that is the minimum lens that would do but not useful for many other things. I am not home right now but I seem to recall my 70-200 not being IS. It is fine though as I just dial up the ISO as I need it. Not saying to not get IS. IS is wonderful to have. But for shorter focal lengths there is a work-around.If you or anyone has comments on the 70-300 f4-5.6 vs. the 70-200 f4 I'm still cogitating. It may be flat out of my budget, but I don't want to waste $300 on the cheaper lens if it is going to be too bad. I don't think so, however, and it may serve as a backup if I get the L-series later (or the bigger 70-300 f4).
Thinking - Don
Edit: I had the L-series 100-400 f4-5.6 with IS, in my cart for $1500, not the prime... I see now the 70-200 f4 is only $630, not out of range but not listed as the IS version, and the 70-200 f2.8 (also not IS) is $1300. The IS 70-200 f4 is $1150, the f2.8 version is $2050. So many choices... I am not sure how the kit 70-300 with IS stacks up to the f4 70-200 without IS. I have always headed toward IS since getting it in my first DSLR a long time ago.
I have circular polarizers and never use them. Can do the same in photoshop and then some.
One last question (though feel free to comment on anything else); I spec'd the basic 270 flash. I tend to use the flash for candid indoor shots, often as fill, and sometimes when I shoot a night raider off the deck (racoons keep taking out our bird feeder, didn't even know we had them in the area!) The step-up 430 is another $100, any reason to upgrade? I just didn't think it was worth it for the way I use it. Frankly, a pop-up would do me just fine, wish Canon would see things my way on that!
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |